What parent hasn't used candy to pacify a cranky child or head off a brewing tantrum? When reasoning, threats and time-outs fail, a sugary treat often does the trick. But while that chocolate-covered balm may be highly effective in the short term, say British scientists, it may be setting youngsters up for problem behavior later. According to a new study, kids who eat too many treats at a young age risk becoming violent in adulthood.

The research was led by Simon Moore, a senior lecturer in Violence and Society Research at Cardiff University in the U.K., who specializes in the study of vulnerable youngsters. Moore had been investigating the factors that lead children to commit serious crimes, when, during the course of his work, he discovered that "kids with the worst problems tend to be impulsive risk takers, and that these kids had terrible diets - breakfast was a Coke and a bag of chips," he says. (See nine kid foods to avoid.)

Intrigued by this association, Moore turned to the British Cohort Study, a long-term survey of 17,000 people born during a one-week period in April 1970. That study included periodic evaluations of many different aspects of the growing children's lives, such as what they ate, certain health measures and socioeconomic status. Moore plumbed the data for information on kids' diet and their later behavior: at age 10, the children were asked how much candy they consumed, and at age 34, they were questioned about whether they had been convicted of a crime. Moore's analysis suggests a correlation: 69% of people who had been convicted of a violent act by age 34 reported eating candy almost every day as youngsters; 42% of people who had not been arrested for violent behavior reported the same.

The iron law of statics: If you cross correlate enough variables you're certain to find some “significant” correlations.

The number of people diagnosed as mental defectives in the United Kingdom in the early twentieth century correlates strongly with the number of letters in the last name of the Vice-President of the United States. Coincidence?

Seriously, this is so junk science. Maybe the parents that couldn’t feed their kids nutritious food also batted them about the head every day, didn’t talk with them, and didn’t set any moral standards. Did this “study” control for any of those factors?

24
posted on 10/03/2009 3:36:59 PM PDT
by LibFreeOrDie
(Obama promised a gold mine, but will give us the shaft.)

Alternative theory, based on same evidence: Junk food doesn’t contribute to children turning out badly, incompetent parenting does. To give a misbehaving child candy is to reward bad behavior. Teaching your children that bad behavior pays is a good start to turning them into criminals.

And as for the whole Coke-and-chips-for-breakfast - any parent who would permit that either a) isn’t attentive enough, or b) lacks judgment. I’m no health nut, but even I wouldn’t eat a breakfast like that, or permit any child under my supervision to.

I’ve often wondered why popular cereals have to be that sugary sweet. To me it’s almost nauseating. I’ve gone to things like corn flakes (that still may have some sugar but it isn’t “in your face” sweet).

39
posted on 10/03/2009 4:38:36 PM PDT
by HiTech RedNeck
(The Democrat party is a criminal enterprise.)

Apparently not. Is it just marginally possible that parents who cared enough to insist that their kids eat nutritious food where better parents who taught self discipline and right from wrong? Naw, it's the junk food pass some more taxes and ban candy.

Corn Flakes are just mashed up bits of gypsum like corn stuck together with a liquid sugar cement. Even if it isn’t in your face sweet its still mostly that liquified sugar. I used to eat lots of different types and most cereal flakes are created that way. These days I have switched to an old boy scout favourite up here in Canada called Red River cereal (not sure if it is available in the US or not) and it is very healthy with no sugar but I do add some maple syrup for flavour.

Would you believe there was a recipe bouncing around in the 70’s for “sauerkraut chocolate cake.” You just mixed the kraut in with the cake mix and some eggs and baked, and it was touted as the most wonderful thing. My mother tried it, and I am convinced the recipe was a prank. Cherries fill out a chocolate cake nicely — but the other stuff? Phew and yuck!

47
posted on 10/03/2009 4:59:32 PM PDT
by HiTech RedNeck
(The Democrat party is a criminal enterprise.)

True. Even if the correlation is valid, i.e., repeatable, representative of a true correlation, it doesn’t mean cause and effect. The first thing that occured to me was that parents who are lazy and indulgent get poor results.

It’s what’s known in statistics as colinearity. Many traits may be associated.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.